 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:09:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> Just FYI, the camera doesn't have any option to save anything but JPEG
>> format. You can adjust the colour balance (but not very much), and
>> exposure and IIRC you can manually set the shutter speed in case you're
>> insane.
>>
>> I still want a new camera. It's a PITA that I can't leave the batteries
>> in this one...
>
> What kind of camera have you got? (I suppose I could look at the EXIF
> tags.....Fujifilm FinePix S304 it looks like.
Yeah, that sounds right.
> Changing the shutter speed, though, that's not insane, that's sensible
> when you can tell how it will affect the image.
No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down
*relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter
speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have
to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence).
It's not relative to what the camera chose.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
>
> Believe me, it is worth it. Especially a lens at that price (Just a
> guess: 400mm f/2.8 aperture, which would be one heck of a lens!)
It was the most expensive lense I could find in the catalogue. ;-) I'm
strange like that; when looking at a price list, I often go to the final
page, just to see how silly the price is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
>> jaw-droppingly expensive...
>
> It's less than pocket change for individuals or businesses doing actual work
> with it, as far as tools go.
Sure. I can believe that. It's just that _for an individual_ it's
exorbitantly expensive. (But then, it's not designed for individuals...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down
> *relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter
> speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have
> to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence).
> It's not relative to what the camera chose.
My point-n-shoot previews the effects of manual shutter speed and aperture on
the screen... it's pretty reliable, it usually only takes me one or two test
shots to get the effect I'm after. I don't quite understand how it does this for
the exposure times; presumably it's just a precalibrated brightness
change.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Still, given that it's a high-powered zoom lense, you need to hold it very
> still anyway...
A rough rule of thumb is that you need a shutter speed of 1/focal length or
faster to get a blur-free hand-held shot. With the Canon 600m F4 (costing
just over 7K) you would be limited to using it in daylight handheld, or
maybe just about under floodlights if you crank up the ISO setting and can
tolerate a bit of image noise in the darker areas.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Not really, there are some scary lawyer words buried in those owner's
>> manuals.
>
> I just read a recent discussion where someone went thru a bunch of user
> manuals for all the high-end cameras, including like the things that TV
> studios and digital movie production houses use, and they *all* say you
> have to go get your license for any commercial use. Indeed, individual
> viewers also need a license to watch any video that was *ever* in MPEG
> (h.264?) format that ever had any sort of money transfer associated with
> it.
>
> So if you take a video with a camera that records it as mpeg, transcode
> that to FLV, share it via youtube (where youtube makes money serving
> ads), and I watch it, I technically need a license to watch that video.
>
We read the same discussion, then.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
I suspect this is the one.
Engadget cleared up a lot of her story with this:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/
For the most part, I think they are right. The patents are in coding and
decoding, and patent infringement does not extend to the end user.
People building the encoder chips are already paying licenses to use the
patents, it's just software that hasn't been paying. I think there is a
mistake in the Engadget story, in that distributing an h.264 file would
still not be patent infringement for the end user. If the video encoder
paid their license and the video player did as well, should they finally
be asked to, then the video host should not be liable. Now, they mention
YouTube, and I suppose since currently YouTube does both encode from any
video type to h.264 and then display through a decoder that they are
distrubting, their flash player, that they might be liable to pay a
license as well.
Obligatory car analogy; think of Honda Hybrid owners. They do not need a
license from Toyota to use the car. They don't even need a license to
replace parts, as long as those parts are bought from people who hold a
license. And if they buy unlicensed parts, no one is going to come along
and repossess the car.
/still not legal advice
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4be27992@news.povray.org...
> >> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
> >> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
> >> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
> >> jaw-droppingly expensive...
> > It's less than pocket change for individuals or businesses doing actual
work
> > with it, as far as tools go.
> Sure. I can believe that. It's just that _for an individual_ it's
> exorbitantly expensive.
> (But then, it's not designed for individuals...)
Yes, that's the bottomline; it's a professional application for
professionals. Average home user has a lot of other choices that should
satisfy their needs for free or for a few bucks at most. Unfortunately,
piracy of it is beyond critical mass, so everyone thinks of Photoshop when
all they need to is crop a couple of pictures, which encourages them to
pirate it, fueling the fire.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:09:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> Just FYI, the camera doesn't have any option to save anything but JPEG
>>> format. You can adjust the colour balance (but not very much), and
>>> exposure and IIRC you can manually set the shutter speed in case you're
>>> insane.
>>>
>>> I still want a new camera. It's a PITA that I can't leave the batteries
>>> in this one...
>>
>> What kind of camera have you got? (I suppose I could look at the EXIF
>> tags.....Fujifilm FinePix S304 it looks like.
>
> Yeah, that sounds right.
>
>> Changing the shutter speed, though, that's not insane, that's sensible
>> when you can tell how it will affect the image.
>
> No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down
> *relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter
> speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have
> to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence).
> It's not relative to what the camera chose.
The camera should have a way of telling you what it thinks optimum
exposure is. Without any training, you can gauge from that.
Or you can guess from the Sunny 16 rule, f16 and 1/ISO shutter speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule
Looking at the manual for the S304 manual mode, it looks fairly simple.
f2.8,4.8,8.2 apertures, really weird choices on the 4.8 and 8.2, but
those are what it has. Since you have expressed that you want the stuff
in focus to be in focus, while the rest gets blurred, use a lower fstop,
2.8 is really narrow. Then, it looks like you do not get a shutter speed
adjustment, just aperture priority mode, so you don't have to worry
about the math or gauging the light available from the sun. Just tell it
the aperture, and let it go. If that is still too bright, could be that
the camera isn't as smart as it pretends to be, and dial the exposure
down, -1 or what ever.
Ap priority is in the photography menu, should show up on the bottom of
the lcd after being selected with "1/5000f2.8" or what ever, based on
the speed it thinks is good, and the aperture you selected. But for
heaven sake, get it out of auto mode.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 12:35:02 +0200, scott wrote:
>>
>>> And typically pros will not let the camera do *any* processing, and
>>> import the raw sensor data to their computer for manual colour,
>>> sharpness and exposure control.
>>
>> Exactly - the adjustments I made were pretty basic with GIMP (similar
>> to the ones you made), but if RAW format images were available,
>> there'd be a lot more room to adjust things like exposure.
>
> ....but once the image has been taken, the exposure has already
> happened. How can you change it after the fact?
>
When shooting in RAW, the camera is not recording 'this pixel is X
amount of green.' It is recording only 'sensor location x,y received Z
amount of light.' The editing software looks at that, not at the
interpolated (RGB,HSL,HSV,CMYK,whatever) image. So, if you know that Z
light was received over T time, and you want to know what it might look
like had you left the shutter open for 1.5T, just go through and bump
everything to 1.5Z, then interpolate to get the image to display. This
gets much less accurate as you get past one full step exposure, 0.5 and
2 times the light.
This still won't recover data from areas that were saturated, as if the
sensor is all at Zmax they will all reduce equally. It can, since there
often there is some light hitting the sensor at all locations, be used
to push an exposure up and get more detail out of dark areas. You can
also change the curve of the sensor response by group, affecting only
the red, green, or blue sensors. You can do this with a JPEG as well,
but my suspicion is that if you use a RAW the curve would be applied
before the sensor elements are interpolated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 5:35 AM, scott wrote:
> They looked decent enough to me! And typically pros will not let the
> camera do *any* processing, and import the raw sensor data to their
> computer for manual colour, sharpness and exposure control.
Some do, some don't. I know one pro who does motorsport shooting and
never uses raw images. He wants to cram as many exposures onto his flash
card as he can, and generally knows how to nail the exposure and white
balance in-camera so he has hardly any post process to do on the image.
Wedding photogs are another group of pro's that some will do jpeg rather
than raw, simply because they want a ton of images.
Though most that don't have high volumes of images prefer raw. I prefer
raw simply because I'm a control freak.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
